Daily Archives: April 1, 2020

First he was beaten by the mob, then he was ‘beaten’ by the so-called “justice” system in Oregon.

More from me later, but the Oregon Appeals Court has ruled against Mike Strickland’s self defense case after an Antifa mob beat him and came back for more at a public protest in July of 2016.

What a travesty.

Next step is the Oregon State Supreme Court.

This is what Mike is saying today about the disappointing ruling.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Michael Strickland’s response to the Oregon Court Of Appeals opinion.

Greetings! Michael Strickland here. Some of you may remember me as thenews videographer who was attacked by a gang of masked thugs while Iwas at work, filming a protest in downtown Portland on July 7th, 2016.This gang, dressed in black with masks over their faces and sticks inhand, encircled me from behind, led by a 400 pound multi time federalfelon by the name of Benjamin Kerensa. They began to push and shove mewhile shouting “YOU NEED TO GET THE F*** OUT OF HERE!” In response towhat I perceived as unlawful physical force, and further imminentunlawful physical force as I attempted to retreat and avoid analtercation, fearing that I was about to be beaten and robbed, I choseto act in what I believed to be self defense, in accordance withOregon’s self defense laws. With no police to be seen, I was left tofend for myself. I drew my legally carried firearm, pointed it atseveral individuals whom I perceived as threats, and issued verbalcommands for them to get back and leave me alone. The mob of thugsfinally backed off, and they ceased to be threats, so I reholsteredwithout firing a round or harming so much as a fly. This was based offof the numerous firearms training courses I had attended over theyears, included instruction from DPSST instructors, the same peoplewho train and certify police officers.

Everything that I did was in reaction to what others were doing to me.

I was the one arrested and charged with multiple felonies, while theviolent thugs who instigated the entire altercation are considered tobe the innocent victims. As much as people cite the 2nd Amendment inmy case, I think this is a 1st Amendment case as its core. Does aperson have the right to be in a public area, filming a public event,in exercise of their 1st Amendment right to freedom of the press, ordoes a gang of masked terrorists have the right to use physical force,threats, and intimidation to prevent a person from being in a publicarea, filming a public event?

Unfortunately for the community, I was found guilty of 21 counts,including 10 felonies, for not wanting to be beaten and robbed.

Throughout the ordeal, I witnessed deputy district attorney KateMolina cite false police reports from prior events that were untrue,lying to judges, in an effort to further punish me. During pre trialhearings, Judge Thomas Ryan ruled that we do not get a change of venuebased on the untrue and defamatory things that Molina said about methat were parroted by local media. Judge Ryan also ruled that anymention of a prior event from 2015 when violent “documentarian” SkyeFitzgerald had stolen two video cameras from me and body slammed me tothe pavement, shattering my arm and leaving me partially disabled isinadmissible in this case, with Judge Ryan saying that that incidentdoes not play into ones mindset, which is untrue because it certainlydid play into my mindset. How a judge, or anyone, can tell someoneelse what was going through their mind is impossible to ascertain. Mystatements to the detectives were also ruled to be inadmissible, as Ihad stated to them how the gang had attacked me and how I was in fear.One of the things I was being charged with was “Unlawful Use Of AWeapon” which has multiple definitions, and the judge ruled thatprosecutors Molina and Todd Jackson don’t have to state which part ofthe law they were charging me with, thus leaving me with an impossibledefense because I didn’t know what I was defending myself against.Perhaps most egregious of all was the fact that Molina and Jacksonclaimed there were ten “victims” yet could only produce two of them;the aforementioned Ben Kerensa and Malcolm Chaddock, who served as adistraction by being yet another individual who was circling me frombehind, leaving Kerensa free to make a run up along my blind side. Iwas denied the right to face my accusers. Judge Thomas Ryan alsoallowed the DA’s to put on an ambush “expert” witness after both sideshad rested. This “expert” witness, Gresham police officer RyanRasmussen, was not listed on any witness list. Rasmussen was not awitness to the incident, but rather he was there to testify as to howsomeone is trained in the use of firearms. Rasmussen has no experiencewith firearms in the civilian world, has no certifications to traincivilians, and has never had an Oregon Concealed Handgun License. Histestimony was only applicable to how police officers are trained.Furthermore, Rasmussen testified that police cannot draw theirfirearm, point it at hostile individuals, not shoot, and thenreholster. Officer Rasmussen testified under oath that the only time apolice officer should draw their firearm is when they are shooting.Rasmussen was also caught lying on the stand by claiming that policedo not use any sort of use-of-force continuum or chart, which isuntrue because he himself had previously referenced one such chart.Throughout the trial there were multiple witnesses who lied about avariety of things on the witness stand, including how many times Idrew my firearm (which was only once), when I had drawn it, in whatmanner I was carrying, how many police were present, and more. Thesewere proven to be lies by the copious amounts of video evidence.

You can view videos of the altercation, including a mutli angle videowith my commentary, along videos of people’s testimony showing howthey lied, and some of the other outrageous things that happenedduring this experience on my youtube channel,www.youtube.com/LaughingAtLiberals . Victoria Taft has also doneseveral blog articles on the case at www.victoriataft.com .

By declaring me guilty, Judge Thomas Ryan has essentially ruled that aperson does not have a 1st Amendment right to be in a public area,filming a public event, and that a gang of violent thugs have thelegal right and lawful authority to use force to eject a person from apublic area.

To make matters worse, throughout various different time periods sinceI was attacked, I have been banned from engaging in numerous different1st Amendment activities, which had the effect of banning me fromworking. That’s right, I’m threatened with arrest and imprisonment ifI engage in what used to be our 1st Amendment rights. That should sendshivers down the spines of everyone in Oregon, especially othermembers of the media. Not only is the 1st Amendment now nullified, butself defense in Oregon is now a thing of the as well.

Since my actions were solely in self defense, I appealed the ruling.My attorney on the appeal, Robert Barnes, cited all of the aboveerrors and more in our written appeal. The appeal centered mainlyaround my mindset, since all evidence relating to my mindset, myexperiences, my training, my knowledge of how protests can sometimesturn violent, and my knowledge of antifa and anarchist groups were allruled to be inadmissible. The “reasonableness” of me acting in selfdefense is certainly based on all of those things. The reasonable manstandard must include the subjective aspect, what’s reasonable to mewith my experiences, my training, and my knowledge. We cited severaldifferent case laws that pertain to these things and more.

Even the DA’s ambush expert witness was forced to concede that I hadproperly assessed some of those individuals as threats and that I wasjustified in drawing down on at least some of them.

Today, April 1st, 2020, appropriately enough on April Fools Day, theOregon Court Of Appeals released their opinion on State v Strickland,affirming the lower court’s finding of guilt. The text of their“opinion” can be found athttps://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p17027coll5/id/26442/rec/1. These are the same appeals court judges who have sided with rapistsand murderers in past cases over the years, overturning their cases,giving preference to those who prey on the weak, leaving them free tostrike again.

This ruling legalizes mob violence. Applying the same standard, theKKK now have the legal right and lawful authority to attack people ofcolor on the street and chase them away from public areas, and it’sthe person of color who is guilty of crimes if they try to stop theKKK from attacking them.

What’s more, all of these legal standards of what prosecutors can andcan’t do and what is and isn’t admissible can be applied to anyoneelse just the same. Now prosecutors can cite false police reports andclaim someone is part of a gang, when in fact the person is not. Theycan claim someone is racist, or a child molester, or a bank robber,when if fact the person is not. Prosecutors no longer need to producevictims in crimes, as merely vague descriptions without names is nowsufficient. Prosecutors are now allowed to put forth ambush witnessesafter both sides rest. Judges and pre trial release officers can nowban people from engaging in 1st Amendment rights, be it to protest,engage in free press, or other aspects of free speech. Prosecutors cannow successfully move that all evidence relating to a defendant’smindset, training, and knowledge is inadmissible.

I have little doubt that corrupt district attorneys have been pullingthese sort of unethical stunts on countless people over the years.These disgusting tactics are used every day to go after the poor, thedisadvantaged, people of color, those in the LGBT community,immigrants, those with mental disorders, people suffering fromaddiction, and more. My appeal is the community’s best chance atgetting these shady practices overturned.

In the appeals court ruling, Judges Armstrong, Tookey, and Shorrerroneously summed up the circumstances of the incident by makingclaims that: A ) I was open carrying at the event, which is untrue. Iwas concealed carrying as I didn’t want to draw attention to myself. B) That it was only four people who ganged up on me when in fact it wasinitially seven, and that number varied as people were running in andout of the scene, as seen on video. Perhaps they need to frame it asfewer than five, since five or more people engaging in that kind ofbehavior constitutes the crime of RIOT on their part. And C) Theyclaim that Kerensa got physically aggressive with me after seeing thatI had a gun, which is untrue, as I did not reveal the gun until afterhe had begun his violent attack on me. Perhaps they are trying toframe it as though Kerensa was the one acting in self defense after hedeliberately staged a fight with me that I wanted no part of.

All of these things were disputed during the trial, so I don’t knowhow these judges are able to state these things as “undisputed” facts.

In my continuing efforts to clear my name, I will now be taking thiscase to the Oregon Supreme Court for further review. I have nointention of giving up this battle until the rulings are reversed, Iam vindicated, and I get my rights back, regardless of whatever courtI need to take this to and however long it takes.

I am available for interviews, presentations, and other appearances.For your articles I hope you use this picture of mehttps://drive.google.com/file/d/16FH1zlAFKAXTYkC4ePu_M5QYWGoEHiPt/viewor this one https://drive.google.com/open?id=1R42xs3Rn-0KSjda0xfGvRvpD19lQ972Z